"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.

I think more research is needed, maybe it will just postpone the next ice age

another question, if the earth is like a well oiled machine, what happens when it's not so well oiled?

Last edited by FreshAir; Mar 03 2012 at 04:20 AM.

~
belief is what is important, not so much what you believe, for instance, an ordinary sugar pill without belief helps no one, but with belief it can cure your ills and it can be quite the amazing little pill - the magic really comes from within - FreshAir
~

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.

This is wonderful information, cooky.

thanks for sharing.

The "warmies" in our group often overlook these very important scientific facts.

"Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

Last edited by James Cessna; Mar 03 2012 at 07:09 AM.

James Cessna

"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.

Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. This ample evidence proves one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right.

The key word is experiment.

Evidence proves and convinces. Experiment demonstrates.

The experiment has demonstrated:

1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
2. climate has not changed.
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
2. no impact
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.

However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources of CO2 emissions that were almost exactly matched and balanced by natural forms of carbon sequestration for at least the last 400,000 years, keeping CO2 levels varying between about 180ppm during the glacial periods to about 280ppm during the interglacials. Humanity has taken millions of years of natural carbon sequestration that got buried and turned into oil, coal and natural gas, and burned it off into the air in just a century or so and this has raised CO2 levels to about 390ppm (so far and still climbing fast), an almost 40% increase (so far) over the highest levels the world ever saw all through the last four 'ice ages'. Analysis of the carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 reveal the petroleum origin of the excess CO2. The extra CO2 has definitely come from the "combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources".

Ice core data for the past 400,000 years. Note length of glacial cycles averages ~100,000 years. Blue curve is temperature, green curve is CO2, and red curve is windblown glacial dust (loess). Today's date is on the left side of the graph.(source: Paleoclimatology)

MOD EDIT

Ha-Ha!

You have omitted the most important part from these discussions.

Also, please provide an accurate reference for your illustrations. The one you have included does not work.

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

The "warmies" in our group often overlook these very important scientific facts.

"Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

So CO2 does warm the climate. Was that really so hard to admit, after all the previous gibberish?

Then the next question is how much, an answer that can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not kook blogs or opinion pieces in the WSJ, British tabloids, or {insert opinion site of choice here}. Using a variety of analysis methods, including study of the instrumental record, volcanic activity, Nino events, proxy records over the millenium, and long-term paleoclimate data, the evidence all converges with a best estimate of close to 3 C with high confidence extending to a 1.5-4.5 C range, with the highest likelilhood in the middle of that range (reinforced by the fact that all lines of evidence converge around the middle).

So CO2 does warm the climate. Was that really so hard to admit, after all the previous gibberish?

Then the next question is how much, an answer that can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not kook blogs or opinion pieces in the WSJ, British tabloids, or {insert opinion site of choice here}. Using a variety of analysis methods, including study of the instrumental record, volcanic activity, Nino events, proxy records over the millenium, and long-term paleoclimate data, the evidence all converges with a best estimate of close to 3 C with high confidence extending to a 1.5-4.5 C range, with the highest likelilhood in the middle of that range (reinforced by the fact that all lines of evidence converge around the middle).

Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. all lines of evidence prove one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right. Your source is as good as Disney Channel, both use computer generated animations and can show whatever they want to show. Of course, WJ is more credible than Disney.

1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
2. climate has not changed.
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
2. no impact
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

Put it on record and move on.

science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.

However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.

D)
1. Have you ever heard that heat flows only from a colder body to a warmer body in nature?
2.Do you know that it is a fundamental law of Nature?
3. Do you that it does not need or uses or refers to any evidence, it has no evidence.
4. In order to warm climate, according to this law, CO2 has to be warmer than climate, and it has to be cooling while warming climate. Obviously such happening neither has been observed nor makes any sense by composition. Your opening claim is not English. It is a big FAIL from the begining.

Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. all lines of evidence prove one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right. Your source is as good as Disney Channel, both use computer generated animations and can show whatever they want to show. Of course, WJ is more credible than Disney.

Summary: gibberish.

The key word is experiment.

Evidence proves and convinces. Experiment demonstrates.

The experiment has demonstrated:

1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
2. climate has not changed.

#1 is correct. #2 is not. Really no point in carrying on.

Last edited by gmb92; Mar 03 2012 at 10:46 AM.

"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)